Managers Contracts?

These mystify me! Because the contracts are mostly 2 or 3 years and more in some cases. Mourhino could be 4 years but its certainly three. Steve Davis has got a 2 year deal with Leyton Orient etc etc..

Why do clubs do that when they seem to end up paying huge compensation when it doesn't work out? I assume SD got a years pay when he was sacked?

David Moyes is being suggested as the new West Ham manager and he was a failure at Everton, at ManU and Sunderland and he got what was it 8 million when he was sacked at ManU?

My point is why not appoint managers on a 3 months contract and then if if things are OK its extended and if not that is the most they will get? You may say that decent managers wouldn't do that but why not if clubs like ManU would pay you a million pounds for that period, assuming Mourhino is on 4 million year.

Lots of managers are out of work like SD was and so wouldn't he have jumped at the chance of a 3 month deal?

Just two examples where I can't see why they can't be offered that sort of contract and they then have a choice don't they. I think most people in ordinary jobs get what 3 months or 6 months notice?

I have often wondered why clubs especially in the PL don't go for that....The other option is payment by results. eg if the club is in the bottom 6 they are paid half like a bonus payment etc...

David Moyes is worth tens of millions and he has yet to find success anywhere.....OK for some! ;)

David Artell would probably have signed a 3 month deal being its his first managerial role and its not that any club would sack their manager in any particular situation or run of bad results, just that it gives them the option and maybe even focus the managers attention that what is the phrase used about football? Ah....Its a results business! ;)

BTW I don't know what deal DA is on and guessing its a 12 rolling one like SD was...

Actually david moyes was considered very successful at everton,hence his appointment at man Utd. Following ferguson was a big ask and he inherited a squad that was fading fast. He was appointed too late to have a meaningful input to the transfer activity . He didn't set the world on fire but I think he record at the time he was sacked was actually no worse than the much trumpeted Van Gall who suceeded him. I think Sunderland has been a poison chalice for pretty much everybody that's had a go in recent years.

I have raised this question some time ago and cannot understand why conditions are not placed on a manager so that they succeed in their job. For example DA must get a top half finish, transfer monies must be in the plus over a season . I am sure there are many more that could be added to this list . Managers at the present time appear once they get a job are guaranteed money if they succeed or fail.

I agree with "objective" regarding Moyes. I would assume Managers are given an indication of what is expected of them, but the trend seems to be that they are given very little time to achieve anything before they are sacked. Very few clubs have patience these days. How clubs expect to progress with regular managerial changes puzzles me, but, for a club like Sunderland, there is a need for a complete overhaul and the owner reportedly wants to sell. Time for another foreign owner with unrealistic expectations and the desire for a big name manager - I bet Birmingham fans are still rueing the sacking of Gary Rowett.

When I used the word success for Moyes, I was thinking he was OK but never did that much like win the league or get into the top six that often but I need to recheck that. I'm convinced that Ferguson recommended him just because he was a Scot like he was and Busby before but again that is just a personal view. He was a surprise to me getting the ManU job and see he has now been appointed at West Ham, no doubt for a few million quid success or fail as said above...

It is a short term 3 months or 6 months contract but the alternative is worse in my view unless you are prepared to give them 5 or 10 years like Gradi was....The merry go round continues and I'm wondering how long Mourhino will last at ManU and I think they don't crae as they just move on somewhere else with a few more million in their back pocket....If it is a results business, then tie their salary to a position in the league and cups?

When I used the word success for Moyes, I was thinking he was OK but never did that much like win the league or get into the top six that often but I need to recheck that. I'm convinced that Ferguson recommended him just because he was a Scot like he was and Busby before but again that is just a personal view. He was a surprise to me getting the ManU job and see he has now been appointed at West Ham, no doubt for a few million quid success or fail as said above...

A short term 3 months or 6 months contract is my suggestion but the alternative is worse in my view unless you are prepared to give them 5 or 10 years like Gradi was....The merry go round continues and I'm wondering how long Mourhino will last at ManU and I think they don't care as they just move on somewhere else with a few more million in their back pocket....If it is a results business, then tie their salary to a position in the league and cups?

The Premier League is a foreign world to me. I have zilch interest in what goes on. It seems to be a playground for ridiculously wealthy people. I stick with the League - currently, sadly, the bottom tier.
Three or 6 months is far too short a timescale to prove your ability, and it is also sometimes false. A new manager will occasionally turn a team around for a few months before the rot returns; Steve Davis had an amazing year, and on the strength of that probably deserved a longer contract (thankfully he didn't get one).
It's a job. These guys have to prove their tactical ability, their communication skills, their diplomacy dealing with Boards and owners, their man management skills with colleagues. They also have to manage young lads who've only ever had one ambition since the age of seven or eight; social skills have gone by the board; academic success has been largely forgotten; and all they really want to do to relax is go down the pub. That final sentence is, to me, the killer: who would want to manage that lot?
Rolling one-year with the knowledge that the wrong choice will be expensive, is about right; success could then see a better contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexLeicester

The Premier League is a foreign world to me. I have zilch interest in what goes on. It seems to be a playground for ridiculously wealthy people. I stick with the League - currently, sadly, the bottom tier.
Three or 6 months is far too short a timescale to prove your ability, and it is also sometimes false. A new manager will occasionally turn a team around for a few months before the rot returns; Steve Davis had an amazing year, and on the strength of that probably deserved a longer contract (thankfully he didn't get one).
It's a job. These guys have to prove their tactical ability, their communication skills, their diplomacy dealing with Boards and owners, their man management skills with colleagues. They also have to manage young lads who've only ever had one ambition since the age of seven or eight; social skills have gone by the board; academic success has been largely forgotten; and all they really want to do to relax is go down the pub. That final sentence is, to me, the killer: who would want to manage that lot?
Rolling one-year with the knowledge that the wrong choice will be expensive, is about right; success could then see a better contract.

---

12 months rolling contract does seem fair and reasonable but still better than most employees get and I was suggesting 3 to 6 months on a basis that it gives the club more leeway and it has to be about the club and the fans rather than the manager. I was one who thought SD should have had a longer contract and in a way he got that when he was kept on despite failing three seasons in a row. It would make more sense had the club said to him after the second failing one, that he was on notice which would have reduced his payout when he was sacked. I don't much care for the PL either but they do put a lot of money into our academy as well as the FA...

I agree, but what about the players? The manager is usually scapegoated while players, particularly in the Premiership, seem to continue to earn ludicrous sums without merit despite their performances. How often are they implicated in a manager's sacking? Should they have rolling contracts too?

I guess the reason that clubs like ours have a 12 month rolling contract is to ensure that we get compensated if the manager is poached by another club should he be successful and, let’s be honest, we all want our manager to be just that! I recall SD being linked with other clubs after his first 18 months in charge and I would have been mightily dischuffed if we had only got 3 to 6 months compo for him, so it’s a risk we are willing to take.